BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

That is a load of crap. If that was considered deliberately throwing a game then there are hundreds of games you need to look at. It is utterly ridiculous to classify this as throwing a game, even for a noted.

BG please explain how this fits under this category. I don't understand how you could consider this at all.

Sorry you don't like the rulIng but I felt that if this player was to do something similar in the future this game would be possibly considered evidence.

Suicide? or Deliberately throwing a game? He definitely wasn't point dumping, so what else would it fall under? As far as I am aware, a player still has the liberty to decide who and how he/she attacks. As I see it, Lindax provoked that attack and played a significant role in yellows demise.

As far as I know, suiciding itself is not against the rules and happens on a daily basis. Whether it is a noob move, retaliation, or a way to give up once you are beaten, it does happen. Upon inspection, the deliberately throwing games has direct relevance regarding point dumping or directly benefiting from thrown games. I cannot find any other reference to it in the community guidelines.

There is also the perspective of the player. You would have to consider that he either a) didn't think he could win and/or b) hit back on his main aggressor. He was fully within his rights as a player to do this.

Are you saying that he deliberately threw this game or not? And if you are saying this, are you saying that it is relating to point dumping or what? I wouldn't think so.

IMO, he was frustrated at the circumstances and struck at who he perceived to be cause of his issue. I can't see all of the details but I assume that Lindax had cards to worry about as well so I would not want him sitting on top of me either.

This simply is not a ' deliberately thrown game' and so it should not be 'noted' either, since it is not a thrown game it would not stand for evidence of said rule.

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

Sweet. This answers nothing that I asked and seems a bit lazy. I don't think that I am asking too much when asking for clarification of the rules for this case. Either it is or it isn't. And once again, you say suicide. What is relevant is whether this is considered throwing the game or not. If it is not, then it being noted is unwarranted. If it is, then show it and clarify where it falls within our guidelines here.

As I see it, only a cleared is warranted here, and if you feel that a noted is warranted, then I would like to know how it fits. Your quoted attempt at that explanation falls way short of that.

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

Sweet. This answers nothing that I asked and seems a bit lazy.

Totally agree, I have asked similar questions. Basically they have no answers. Its a case of this is the ruling and thats that.

You could look at most of the ESC games and make that ruling, absolute crock!!

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

Sweet. This answers nothing that I asked and seems a bit lazy.

Totally agree, I have asked similar questions. Basically they have no answers. Its a case of this is the ruling and thats that.

You could look at most of the ESC games and make that ruling, absolute crock!!

BGtheBrain wrote:@Lindax - I went back over it. I can agree with you that noting it as possible suiciding seems fair. This way in the future, if something similar happens whoever handles that will be able to see this game as well.

Sweet. This answers nothing that I asked and seems a bit lazy.

Totally agree, I have asked similar questions. Basically they have no answers. Its a case of this is the ruling and thats that.

You could look at most of the ESC games and make that ruling, absolute crock!!

That is the point. There should not even be a report. Yet when asked to explain the details, we are blown off. This needs to be clarified.You are right, can't blame Lindax for filing, even though he should have known better, but the mod is another matter. Indeed, he initially began with the correct ruling, then turned around and reversed it to a noted for future evidence. When I asked for details, he is a no show?